Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mignonette (album)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  Ya  sh  !   16:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mignonette (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable and contested redirect. AllMusic entry has no review. pitchfork review but no other entries from WP:RSes in the first fifty hits through Google. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not pass WP:NALBUMS. sst  ✈  05:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here's what a few minutes of searching turns up: Substantive review in Paste.  Substantive coverage in a syndicated Knight Ridder article. . A paragraph about the album in a concert preview in The Washington Post .  Some useful content about the album in a concert review from Indy Week.    Material about the album in a book by the photographer.   Numerous mentions of this album as one of the band's better ones in reviews of later work, and articles about the band, e.g.  and more.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs improvement but there are clearly sufficient sources available to do that. --Michig (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree it needs improvement, but the sourcing found by is more than enough to meet notability requirements.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.